Re: [HACKERS] gperf anyone? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: [HACKERS] gperf anyone?
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.21.0001192117280.5544-200000@localhost.localdomain
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] gperf anyone?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2000-01-18, Tom Lane mentioned:

> I agree with Don that the performance benefit is likely to be
> unmeasurable.  Still, there could be a win: we currently have to modify
> keywords.c by hand every time we have to add/delete a keyword.  Does
> gperf offer any aid for maintaining the keyword list?  If so, that'd
> be sufficient reason to switch to it...

That's a good point. It would allow you much more ordering freedom. The
file is attached for review. Of course adding/deleting keywords would now
require gperf. :(

-- 
Peter Eisentraut                  Sernanders väg 10:115
peter_e@gmx.net                   75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/            Sweden

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] gperf anyone?
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] gperf anyone?